4.5 Review

The incentive salience of courtship vocalizations: Hormone-mediated 'wanting' in the auditory system

期刊

HEARING RESEARCH
卷 305, 期 -, 页码 19-30

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.04.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF IBN [0346984]
  2. Center for Behavioral Neuroscience
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [0346984] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conspecific vocalizations differ from many other sounds in that they have natural incentive salience. Our thinking about auditory responses to vocalizations may therefore benefit from models originally developed to understand reward. According to those models, the brain attributes incentive salience to rewarding stimuli via the activity of monoaminergic neuromodulators. These neuromodulators, in turn, mediate the effects of experience and internal state. Songbirds lend themselves well to this discussion because the natural incentive salience of song is clearly modulated by both factors. Their auditory responses have been well-studied, particularly the song-induced expression of plasticity-associated genes such as ZENK. Here I review evidence that ZENK responses to song are regulated by monoamine neuromodulators, and I interpret this evidence in the context of incentive salience. First, hearing conspecific song engages monoaminergic activity in the auditory system and elsewhere. Second, in females this activity may be regulated by the same hormones that regulate behavioral preferences for song. Finally, much of the evidence thought to implicate neuromodulators in song discrimination and memory suggests that they may affect incentive salience. Expanding the study of incentive salience beyond the mesolimbic reward system may reveal some new ways of thinking about its underlying neural basis. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Communication Sounds and the Brain: New Directions and Perspectives. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据